ExpandCollapse

Lawlman

SANTA ANA, Timothy C. Mason: While most Americans are following and being mislead about the fiscal cliff, we are losing 12-term Rep. Ron Paul to retirement. A great loss to all Americans who understand what the “role of government” is under constitutional law. Paul has always honored the oath of office to uphold the Constitution while serving in Congress (sadly while most other members serve political parties or special interests).

In the early 1960s Paul earned a medical degree and served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force for five years. After military service Paul opened a medical practice and delivered more than 4,000 babies. Because of Paul’s consistency of upholding the Constitution and refusing to “go along” with the bipartisan members and “compromising” our Constitution to pass “illegal” laws and spending bills. He is known as “Dr. No” on the House floor.

We need a lot more like him.

A quote from Paul sums up a “major” problem we face in America today. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

Rep. Paul has stood alone many times on the House floor in Congress, but he always stood tall and brought honor and integrity to the American political process. Paul’s leadership will be truly missed.

Before he does, however, the sometime presidential candidate and all-the-time defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul (R-Texas), has some parting words for his congressional colleagues.

On his official House of Representatives website, Paul published what he calls a “New Year’s Resolution for Congress.”

“As I prepare to retire from Congress, I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider,” Paul writes.

First, Paul, the unrepentant and unwavering constitutionalist, encourages lawmakers carrying on in Congress to “consider the strict libertarian constitutional approach to government in 2013.”

There is little debate as to the 12-term congressman’s libertarian bona fides. It is his refusal to vote in favor of any measure not authorized by the Constitution’s enumerated powers that earned the former obstetrician the nickname "Dr. No."

In the next paragraph, Paul mentions those “few and defined” powers, reminding congressmen of their oaths of office and the obligation they willingly undertake to adhere strictly to the founding document of the Republic:

In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They should reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say no in the face of pressure from special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oaths. Congress does not exist to serve special interests, it exists to protect the rule of law.

Click to expand...

Next, Paul moves on to what has become perhaps his most controversial and most compelling policy position: opposition to unconstitutional, undeclared foreign wars. Paul writes:

I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes; stop the covert activities and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe “good faith and justice towards all Nations” as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives, and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative, interventionist mindset that endorses pre-emptive war that now dominates both parties.

Click to expand...

Beyond these words, Ron Paul has demonstrated the sincerity of his belief in the immorality and unconstitutionality of the ongoing drone war. In November, Paul and fellow war opponent Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) co-sponsored House Resolution 819. The measure would have forced the Obama administration to provide all documents setting out the legal justification for the death-by-drone program, including, according to the Houston Chronicle, “any memos from the Office of Legal Counsel.”

In a statement released by Representative Paul in June, he explained that the threat to our liberty posed by the president’s proliferation of the drone war was more imminent than the danger to our national security posed by alleged militants:

This dramatic increase in the use of drones and the lowered threshold for their use to kill foreigners has tremendous implications for our national security. At home, some claim the use of drones reduces risk to American service members. But this can be true only in the most shortsighted sense. Internationally the expanded use of drones is wildly unpopular and in fact creates more enemies than it eliminates.

Click to expand...

The fatal phenomenon described by Dr. Paul is called “blowback.”

Blowback is defined as violent counter-attacks carried out as revenge for drone strikes that have killed thousands, many of whom were doing nothing more threatening than going to the market or attending a funeral.

Not surprisingly, the Paul-Kucinich resolution was rejected by voice vote at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Another plank in the solid Paul platform in the elimination of all foreign aid. Paul recommends to his former fellows:

All foreign aid should end because it is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs — and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal, and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayer dollars.

Click to expand...

Proof of Paul’s statement is found in the odd arrangement created by American largesse in the Middle East.

Is seems strange that Congress would consistently coalesce behind Israel and its right to protect its sovereign borders, yet authorize millions in foreign aid to be sent annually to most of the nations that surround it.

For example, Egypt receives nearly $1.5 billion in aid annually from the United States. Jordan receives over $800 million in financial aid from the American treasury.

Gaza and the West Bank receive $575 million annually thanks to the forced generosity of the American taxpayer. Ironically, the enemy of our purported ally stands in the same U.S. welfare line as Israel herself.

Speaking of the way U.S. financial aid contributes to the perpetuation of violence in that perennially war-torn region, Ron Paul wrote in November:

It's our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza…. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp.

Click to expand...

Dr. Paul’s parting prescription then moves on from the unconstitutional doling out of dollars to the unconstitutional printing of them.

"Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. US debt, monetized by the Federal Reserve, is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start," Paul pleads.

Ron Paul’s fight to dismantle the Federal Reserve is so well-known that it hardly need be repeated, but he insisted that the Fed’s threat to our political and fiscal future was so great that “the argument needs to be repeated in every discussion of public policy.” In that spirit, I offer the following words from Paul’s 2011 book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom:

I would like to see a dollar as good as gold. I would like to see the banking system operating as it would under free enterprise, meaning no central bank. I would like to see competitive currencies emerge on the market and be permitted to thrive. I’ve been pushing for these solutions for decades. The problem of the transition is not technical. It can happen. The problem is political. Paper money is a drug and Washington is addicted.

Click to expand...

Love him or hate him, there is no debate that Ronald Earnest Paul is an icon, an inspiration, an enigma, and an example of consistency and courage for congressman and citizen alike. The closing paragraph of his New Year’s letter to lawmakers succinctly and accurately identifies the polestar followed by Paul every day of his exemplary congressional career:

There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of everything members of Congress do in 2013.

It has happened before. At the end of this day in January 1977 he was no longer a member of Congress. He had lost by 268 votes out of over 180,000. At the end of this day in 1985, he was no longer a member of Congress. He had resigned to run for the Senate. He did not get the nomination.

Twice he came back. There will not be a third time. He has other fish to catch.

I was on his staff in 1976. I saw Congress close-up. Once was enough. I explained why in 1977: "Confessions of a Washington Reject."

Ron Paul never fit in on Capitol Hill. There are reasons for this. Four reasons.

THE BIG FOUR

The ruling triumvirate on Capitol Hill are the same as in every other political capital in history: money, sex, and power. But there is one more: booze.

The problem is, these four are almost universal in their appeal. In what way is Congress different?

Because power is the biggie. If you get power, you can get the others.

The phrase "money, sex, and power" reflects a commercial sequence, not political. It is more Wall Street than Capitol Hill.

I searched Google for "money, sex, and power" as a unit. How many hits do you think I got? Guess. Go on: guess. To find out, click here.

Amazing, no? The phrase is universal, because the lusts are universal. They are a package deal on Capitol Hill more than anywhere on earth.

I searched for "power, sex, and money." That's Capitol Hill. The hits were 88% smaller.

But here's the deal: booze is #4 on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill.

In 1989, former Senator John Tower was nominated by President Bush as Secretary of Defense. Paul Weyrich of the conservative Free Congress Foundation vocally opposed this. Why? Because Tower was a heavy drinker and a serial adulterer. Everyone in town knew it. No one was supposed to say it in public. Weyrich became hated for this stand. But the Senate eventually refused to confirm his nomination, 53 to 47, on close to a straight party vote. It was the first time in U.S. history that an incoming new President had seen his initial nomination rejected. In his autobiography published a year later, Tower quoted Senator Barry Goldwater: "If they had chased every man or woman out of this town who had shacked up with somebody else or gotten drunk, there'd be no government." He was telling the truth.

Then why booze? If you have money, sex, and power, why do you want booze? If you have scored big on the Big Three, why do you crave the fourth?

Here we get to the heart of the political matter. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. A lot of women are attracted to it.

I grew up among the most beautiful women on earth: the Southern California beach scene. I lived two blocks from the sand. The best-looking women in the region got on bathing suits and headed for the beaches on the weekends. Unattractive women tended not to do this. The curves on the beach are not bell-shaped. It was not until I worked on Capitol Hill that I saw that many good looking women in one place. They weren't there for the sunshine.

Congressmen have made it to the top in the realm of power. It does not satisfy. They can hire good looking women. They can meet good looking women. They cannot help but meet good looking women. The Seduction of Joe Tynan is a movie on this this. Maybe they are not rich, but they can get rich at any time by quitting and becoming lobbyists. They live as though they are rich. They have entourages of young people following them.

And they drink.

Something is missing in their lives that money, sex, and power cannot fill. Yet if the Big Three don't work, they wind up singing along with Peggy Lee to "Is That All There Is?" Musically, it's not much of a song. The message is unforgettable.

Those of us who are content to live outside the Washington Beltway find it difficult to connect with those on Capitol Hill. The longer they stay there, the more difficult it is. And I think it works both ways. They do not want to leave.

RON PAUL, OUTSIDER

Ron Paul never had any power. His ideology guaranteed that he would not get any. He never did.

He had left a career that pays well: obstetrics. He did not go there for money. He did not even sign up for a Congressional pension.

He was happily married.

I never saw him take a drink.

He could not be seduced by Washington.

When I was there, I was in the back office with Dr. John Robbins and a middle-aged secretary. I did not go to the front office often. I only recall one pretty girl on the staff. Maybe there were others. I don't recall. I think her name was Teresa. She was memorable. She did not like ice cream. I have never met anyone else who did not like ice cream. I have never even heard of anyone who did not like ice cream.

His staff was not a hotbed of scandal.

He did not even have an Administrative Assistant in his first six-month term. He appointed his own staff. That made his staff unique on Capitol Hill.

It is tough to buy someone if he doesn't want anything you have for sale.

How would you blackmail a person whose main deviation was in hiring a good looking girl who does not like ice cream? Or hiring a pair of Calvinist academics who were at loggerheads over VanTilian vs. Clarkian apologetics?

Word spread. He voted "no" all the time. He soon became known as "Dr. No." If the media had known that I was on his staff, I might have become known as "Dr. No's Dr. No." But such was not to be, by 135 votes.

WHAT WAS IN IT FOR HIM?

He stayed to take a stand. He wanted to get his message to a larger audience: the message of limited civil government, which included sound money and a peaceful foreign policy.

He represented the folks back home, in two separate districts: first one, then the other. He became their spokesman. There always has to be a spokesman.

As time went on, he became a spokesman for voters outside his district. By the end, he was a spokesman for voters outside the country.

I cannot think of any Congressman in history who achieved anything like this.

A lot of people come to Washington to take a stand, battle for a cause, and make a difference. But the Big Four sidetrack a lot of people. Those who are not tempted by these face that other sidetrack: frustration.

He came into Washington knowing that he would not persuade Congress. So, frustration was not a problem.

He saw a bully pulpit, and he used it.

He never preached to the choir in Congress. But he preached to the choir outside the Beltway. It just kept getting bigger. Huge.

The "money bomb" of December 2007 revealed just how many people were in his choir. He had not even organized it. Washington finally took notice. He had proven to be a master of one of the Big Four: money. Money talks in Washington. The loudest-talking money is campaign fund money.

Washington asked: "How did this happen?" They never figured it out. They never read Albert J. Nock's 1936 essay, "Isaiah's Job." Even if they had, they would not have understood.

CONCLUSION

What is the lesson of his career? This: "Stick to your knitting."

Anything else? This. "Never give an inch."

Is that all there is? Not at all. There is also this: "Walk the talk."

Are these bipartisan principles? No. Nonpartisan. No political party has ever adopted them.

ExpandCollapse

Girlvinyl

He's not Ron Paul.
Ron Paul supports the modern nation state and it's monopoly on legitimate violence, the medical profession, rule of law, local police forces, and the solidarity of the nation in facing external world.

The Member Formerly Known As Baya is against all these things. He's less Al Gore and more of a bottom bitch boy of Mohamed Farrah Hassan Aidid. God how that boy loves taking it up the ass.